Abstract
Mazzoni et al (1999) conducted an
experiment to investigate the reliability of recovered memories. Their
hypothesis was that suggestive information about dream content could contribute for changing in believes about past memories. This
experiment involved 159 undergraduates from the University of Washington. The
participants would be required to report the likelihood of a series of childhood events and whether or not they occurred before the age of 3. In addition, they were also expected to give their answers by crossing the appropriate numeral on a 8-point rating scale where 8 indicated ‘definitely happen’ and 1 indicated ‘definitely did not happen’. Followed by this, 72 participants who had their scores lower than 4 were chosen for the final part of the experiment. From the chosen participants only 36 were exposed to a therapy simulation in which a clinician would analyse their dream report. The rest of participants left were used as control group. Each of the participants (except those in the control group) saw the clinician who interpreted their most recent dream report to be a sign that they had had a mildly traumatic experience before age 3 years. This dream intervention caused a majority of participants to become more confident that they had had such an experience, even though they had previously denied it (Mazzoni et al. 1999: 126).
Evaluation
These findings raised a series of questions about the use of dream material in clinical settings and its implications in terms of autobiographical memories. It also provided useful insights of how dream interpretation may have unexpected side effects if it leads to beliefs about the past that may, in fact, be false. Similar studies also gave supportive evidence to the findings above. For instance, in a well know study conducted by Loftus and Palmer (1974) it was found that some events may be falsely remembered if influenced by leading questions or phrasing of questions. However, it can be argue that there is a dichotomy between the paradigm and the method used to carry out the research about dreams interpretation. Since that this approach (Cognitive) defends the idea that there is failure to retrieve information from the first years of life, it was a contradiction to ask participants about childhood events before the age of 3.
It is also interesting to notice that the experiment involved only University undergraduates and, thus, it can be argued that the sample used was not very representative. The fact that they were University students might have increased their likelihood to believe in an authoritative figure such an “expert clinician”. This leads to the next point which the fact that participants’ age might have also influenced the results of the experiment. For instance, Ceci and Bruck (1993) argue that there are reliable age related differences in suggestibility. That is, youngsters are more prone to accept suggestions than older people, at least under certain circumstances. This view is also shared by Cassel et al (1996) who concludes that young people are more likely than older people to incorporate misleading information into their event reports.
Although, this experiment represents to some extent clinical settings in which therapies are conducted, critiques would argue that in a real life situation the clinician would not consciously provide misleading information. Instead, he would gather detailed information about the circumstances of the traumatic event and the circumstances of place at the time of the event, which could be a factor in remembering or forgetting the traumatic experience. For instance, Williams (1994) suggests that people sometimes manifest amnesia for traumatic experiences. Therefore, despite having denied any traumatic events before the age of 3, there was no real evidence to prove if whether or not any of the participants was abused at that time. Thus, it would appear that both false and recovered memories can occur and it is diffficult to decide whether any particular case is an instance of recovered or false memory
Nevertheless, this was a very well conducted and controlled experiment and its socio-political impact has led psychotherapists to become much more aware of their power in influencing patient’s memories about their past. In addition, in terms of its applicability to real life situations this study became particularly significant in court cases of abuse, where sometimes the only evidence is the recovered memories of the victim. However, it could be improved by including other perspectives such as cross-cultural differences, a wide range of age groups and comparing participants from variety of backgrounds.